Nchouki v The Queen

Case [2018] ACTCA 28


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:

Nchouki v The Queen

Citation:

[2018] ACTCA 28

Hearing Date:

7 May 2018

DecisionDate:

6 July 2018

Before:

Burns ACJ, Loukas-Karlsson and Bromwich JJ

Decision:

The appeals against conviction and sentence should be dismissed.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Appeal against conviction – whether primary judge erred in finding electric control devices were designed to administer an electric shock on contact and neither items of medical equipment nor electric prods designed to be used exclusively with animals – whether primary judge erred in not including principles of law and findings of fact on which they relied

Appeal against sentence – whether primary judge erred in accumulation of sentences – whether primary judge erred in failing to take into account the purity of the illicit substances – whether primary judge erred in failing to give necessary effect to the principle of totality – whether primary judge erred by finding that the appellant was motivated by greed – whether primary judge erred in failing to consider alternatives to imprisonment – whether primary judge erred in failing to take appellant’s plea of guilty into account – whether primary judge erred by imposing manifestly excessive or unreasonable or plainly unjust sentence

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 10, 35, 80

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ch 6, ss 58, 59, 601, 603, 604
Criminal Code Regulation 2005 (ACT) sch 1
Electoral Act 1992 (ACT) s 73
Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 79
Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) s 126
Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT) s 5, sch 1
Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act1971 (Cth) s 11

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) ss 68B, 68C

Cases Cited:

Borbil v Western Australia [2007] WASCA 24; 169 A Crim R 152

Bui v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 5
Buxton v R [2017] NSWCCA 169
Chugg v Pacific Dunlop Ltd (1990) 170 CLR 249
Cranfield v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 3
Darling Island Stevedoring & Lighterage Co Ltd v Jacobsen (1945) 70 CLR 635
Director of Public Prosecutions v United Telecasters Sydney Ltd (1990) 168 CLR 594
Dowling v Bowie (1952) 86 CLR 136
Ellis v R [2010] NSWCCA 298
FGT Custodians Pty Ltd v Fagenblat [2003] VSCA 33
Greer v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 312
Henshaw v Mark (1997) 95 A Crim R 115
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Kapkidis v The Queen [2013] VSCA 35
Le Clair v The Queen; Achanfuo-Yeboah v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 19
Locke v R [2010] NSWCCA 296
Luu v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 285
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
McKellar v R [2010] NSWCCA 295
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Nguyen v The Queen [2011] VSCA 139
O’Brien v R [2010] NSWCCA 297
O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47
Peden v Boxx [2016] ACTSC 86
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111

Continue reading Nchouki v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Nchouki v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 28
Case
[2018] ACTCA 28
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nchouki appealed against his conviction and sentence for offences relating to the possession of electric control devices and illicit substances. The appeal was heard by Burns ACJ, Loukas-Karlsson and Bromwich JJ of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central dispute concerned whether the primary judge had erred in law in their findings regarding the nature and purpose of the electric control devices, and in their sentencing determination.

The legal issues before the appellate court included whether the primary judge had made an error in finding that the electric control devices were designed to administer an electric shock on contact, and were neither medical equipment nor electric prods intended for exclusive use with animals. Furthermore, the court was required to consider whether the primary judge had erred in their sentencing by accumulating sentences, failing to account for the purity of the illicit substances, not giving sufficient effect to the principle of totality, finding the appellant was motivated by greed, failing to consider alternatives to imprisonment, and not adequately taking the appellant's plea of guilty into account, leading to a manifestly excessive or unjust sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals against both conviction and sentence. The reasoning of the primary judge regarding the nature of the electric control devices was upheld, and the sentencing decisions were found to be sound, with no errors identified in the application of legal principles or factual findings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeals against conviction and sentence should be dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.